Conciseness

Every section carries instructions Claude would not already know, e.g. "Verify Git is available by running `git rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree 2>/dev/null`" and "Do NOT pass `--number`"; the only trimmable parts are the overlap between "Prerequisites" and "Graceful Degradation" and some script-behavior detail under "Environment Variable Override" — anchor 4 (efficient, minor over-explanation). Not 5 because of those small redundancies; not 3 because nothing pads or explains known concepts.

Actionability

Gives full executable commands for both platforms and both modes (".specify/extensions/git/scripts/bash/create-new-feature.sh --json --short-name \"<short-name>\" \"<feature description>\"") plus concrete short-name examples ("add-user-auth", "fix-payment-bug") and explicit config-check order — anchor 4 (concrete commands with minor gaps). Not 5 because it stops short of how to parse the JSON output or what to do if the script errors; not 3 because nothing is pseudocode or vague.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence (input → env override → git prerequisite check → numbering-mode selection → execution → degradation → output) is clear, with an explicit validation checkpoint ("If Git is not available, warn the user and skip branch creation") and a defined fallback with an exact warning string — anchor 4 (clear sequence, most checkpoints present). Not 5 because there is no feedback loop for script failure or unexpected JSON output; not 3 because checkpoints are explicit and the operation is neither destructive nor batch.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the ~62-line body is fully self-contained under clean section headers, with nothing that clearly belongs in a separate file — anchor 4 (good structure, content appropriately placed). Not 5 because the under-50-line simple-skill exception does not strictly apply at this length and the detailed env-override behavior list could arguably live in a reference; not 3 because structure is clean with no buried or nested references.

Specificity

"Create a feature branch" names the domain and one concrete action, with "sequential or timestamp numbering" adding a specific detail — matching anchor 3 (domain plus 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive). It is not 4 because only a single action is described, and not 2 because the numbering detail is concrete rather than generic.

Completeness

The "what" is clear ("Create a feature branch with sequential or timestamp numbering") but there is no "when" clause or equivalent trigger guidance anywhere, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not 2 because the "what" half is explicit and concrete.

Trigger Term Quality

"feature branch" is a natural user phrase, but the description omits "git" entirely and offers no synonyms or variations (branch naming, spec, numbering) — matching anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing common variations).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The numbering specificity gives it a niche, but "create a feature branch" would also trigger a generic git branch-creation skill — anchor 3 (somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills). Not 4 because no trigger term distinguishes it from ordinary branch-creation skills.